"Birds aren't related to dinosaurs, they ARE dinosaurs" Thank you. Thank you for starting with this. Too many videos take too long to get to this fact when mentioning they've descended from dinosaurs. People misinterpret that phrase as meaning they have descended PAST the point of being a dinosaur, when they have not.
strictly speaking, these categorizations are all artificial intellectual devices and constructs. they have no meanings beyond how humans like to categorized things. if we wish to say birds are not dinosaurs since the time they have feathers, we can do that and it will be equally valid just as if we wish to classified humans are not animals but somewhat superior godlike beings, we can do that as well. they are all valid because these really have no meanings beyond what we humans like to define them as.
@@JAM-ic8kv Yup, it's even worse though because birds are shaped like a very typical theropod too. So even the shape is like a dinosaur, which makes it all the more annoying when people make it sound like they're not dinosaurs.
@Cat Poke modern birds do not look at bit like the earliest dinosaurs. Heck, even many of the none avian dinosaurs do not look a bit like the earliest dinisarsus. There are over a hundred million years between the time dinosaurs' first evolved in triassiac and the time of like say a T Rex theropod. A T Rex would be closer to modern-day humans in the time line than it is to their earliest ancestors and would look very different than the first dinosaurs who branch off of the archosaur. To fly, there needs to be major changes to one's body just like to swim, there needs to be major changes to one's body as well. This is why creteceans look so drastically different from their fur ancestors. Major body changes is necessary to adapt to life in the sea as it is to adapt to life in the sky. The none flying birds like emu and ostrich are much more primitive looking and dinosaurs like.
@@IamAWESOME3980 Theropods weren't the earliest dinosaurs, so I don't see your point. Birds look like regular theropods, that's all I was saying. Although I will say the earliest dinosaurs looked a lot like theropods, so birds aren't too insanely far from them either. They certainly look more like them than whales look like mammals, haha! And yes, a lot of dinosaurs looked nothing like the first dinosaurs. Pretty much only bipedal carnivores and omnivores looked like them.
@@xalspaero any bird that doesn’t have 3 toes and claws on each limb should not classify as the clade Theropod, because that is one of its the main characteristics.
@@andrewgonzales6527 wow... You are a perfect example of someone who thinks they know what they are talking about because they got their education from RU-vid videos... -Dr Sloan
stupid adverts keep interrupting my beautiful sleep.. but this voice is such a pro sleep-hypnosis.. i get back in there within minutes... im gonna use this video to get rid of my insomnia.. thank you sir..
Excellent video. I saw “the bird look” in some of my Dino toys and models as a kid. Not a difficult idea to latch on to. I have a resident crow family which patrols the neighbourhood. Once I started feeding them meat scraps, various fruit items, stale bread, etc. the family saw me as a provider. Being able to study these beautiful new age dinos is a joy for me and my cat. If I haven’t put out scraps for a few days, they peek in the window, wondering where breakfast is. The intelligence sparkles in their eyes, and the powerful beak certainly looks Dino-like! 🇨🇦🖖🏻🇨🇦
Very interesting video. I assume archaeopteryx could fly for short bursts given its hollow bone structure. It probably mostly used it for escaping predators since it's shaped more like a runner.
You mistakenly show an enantiornith as your bird surviving the K-T event, when it's exactly what was wiped out at that boundary. Remember that MOST birds went extinct when the dinosaurs did. The enantiorniths especially. They were the most successful Cretaceous birds, which is exactly why they died out, while niche birds that lived in burrows or water survived.
because birds are dinosaurs we don't need to say the world BIRD we can say DINOSAURS instead , it's more logic for me. I love that video and his voice his just amazing. Good boy i love him
Last evening I saw a beautiful Eastern Bluebird while out walking around the apartments where I live, near Jamestown, NY. I haven't seen one of them in a long time. Too quick for a pic, though.
Yesterday, while walking to cincy steak and lemonade, i saw some chimney swifts fly over my head, twittering and chirping their little hearts out as they flittered through the air gracefully. I even saw one dive into a chimney, presumably to feed its young some insects.
@@jaysons6101 I thought I deleted these comments, but one. I left an edit explaining that I didn't realize the ancestors of three toed animals can be classified as theropods, even if they themselves had more or less toes. My bad.
Here’s something to blow your mind: birds are technically a kind of reptile. They belong to the theropod family of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are archosaurs, where birds and reptiles evolved from, so the non-avian dinosaurs are kind of a mix of both.
(Verse 1) In the ancient world, a fearsome breed, Dromeosaurids, born for speed. With razor claws and a hunter's eye, They ruled the land, the predators high. (Pre-Chorus) In the Cretaceous age, they roamed with might, Swift and cunning, a primal delight. From the dawn to dusk, they hunted their prey, Dromeosaurids, ruling their domain. (Chorus) Dromeosaurids, kings of the ancient earth, With serrated teeth, a thunderous birth. They ran like the wind, relentless and strong, Dromeosaurids, the rock 'n' roll of the long gone. Dromy-oh!-saurids, they rocked on and on. (Verse 2) Velociraptors, deadly and sleek, Utahraptors, fierce and unique. Feathers adorned their reptilian frame, A sight to behold, nature's wicked game. (Bridge) Their claws were sharp, their jaws locked tight, Leaping with grace, they struck in the night. Silent shadows, stalking their prey, Dromeosaurids, the rulers of the day. (Chorus) Dromeosaurids, kings of the ancient earth, With serrated teeth, a thunderous birth. They ran like the wind, relentless and strong, Dromeosaurids, the rock 'n' roll of the long gone. Dromy-oh!-saurids, they rocked on and on. (Solo) (Verse 3) Now they're gone, a distant past, But their legacy forever will last. In our dreams, their spirit survives, Dromeosaurids, rock 'n' roll revived. (Chorus) Dromeosaurids, kings of the ancient earth, With serrated teeth, a thunderous birth. They ran like the wind, relentless and strong, Dromeosaurids, the rock 'n' roll of the long gone. Dromy-oh!-saurids, they rocked on and on. (Outro) Dromeosaurids, we remember your might, In our hearts, you shine bright. Through the ages, your legend remains, Dromeosaurids, forever rockin' in our veins. Dromy-oh!-saurids, they're the rock 'n' roll flames.
The secretary bird is like a modern raptor 🦖it uses it feet with fast acting strike to catch deadly poisonous snakes and lizards in Africa. Plus the forest eagles the Philippine and harpy eagle are super dinosaur like also with there with there head crests and massive claws
What a relief, enough to go back to sleep; giant lizards became birds, chicken is bird, now we get to eat chicken instead of being eaten, just watch out for the giant Komodo dragon.
Personally, I do think archaeopteryx could fly. It makes sense why people think it could only glide when you look at shrinkwrapped depictions of them. But when you look at depictions with full contour feathering and large, aerodynamic wings, the only thing that could really stop it from flying would be how far it can extend its arms and how muscular they'd be. Something tells me that with a body so perfectly aerodynamic, you'd probably be an animal made to fully fly, not just glide.
The problem wirh archaeopteryx is its cheast. Birds have their sternum drasticly inlarged in to the keel, to support the massive muscles needed to fly. Archaeopteryx does not have a keel, its sternum is not much diffrent from other theropods. Even the most flightless birds that lost their keel still have a larger sternum than archeopterx. So it is questionble if it had the power for anything if at all for more than a very short and weak flight. But like you said. Archaeopteryx was very aerodynamical, with at best very, very poor flying abilities, and also was a good climber. That all makes it look far more like a glider than a flyer.
Yes, it could definitely fly. It's body was clearly adapted to do so. You don't need a Keel to flap wings. Bats, Pterosaurs, nor flying Insects have them. You just need strong enough pectoral muscles to flap your arms enough to get airborne, and remain there. Vertebrate Fliers almost all practiced "gliding flight" strategies. Hummingbirds may be the sole exception, mimicking the Insect flying method, and paying a gigantic metabolic price for that. Archaeoperyx could have flown like Seagulls and Vultures like to fly, flap enough to get into the air, to control the direction they are going, to keep from plummeting to their death, but otherwise using mostly gliding techniques to travel in the air. Keels simply make a more powerful flier like a Falcon, or Sparrow possible. In the late Jurassic, the only other Vertebrates airborne were Pterosaurs, who were more Batlike fliers, so Archaeopteryx didn't have to worry about a Falcon hunting it like Pigeons and other flying creatures do today, so it didn't need a Keel to be capable of very powerful flight. It was enough to be able to get airborne and a few flaps here and there to keep you there. You don't need a Keel for that.
@@jonathancummings6400 I agree. Personally I think the keel is just one method dinosaurs found to develop strong flight muscles. I am willing to bet archaeopteryx had its own methods. It's just so aerodynamic. From what I've seen, gliding animals tend to have very unintuitive bodies for flight, because there's no point in maintaining a body built for flight if you can't actually achieve it. Birds, archaeopteryx, and microraptor all made huge sacrifices to achieve the bodies they had. The only reason I could see for them to evolve such a delicately balanced body without being able to truly fly, would be if maybe the only way you can possibly glide using feathers is to have an optimally aerodynamic body. That is the only reason I can think of. And I don't even know that it's true. It probably isn't. But maybe. If it is true, then maybe archaeopteryx couldn't fly. But if it isn't true, I am willing to bet it could. I mean, really... Dinosaurs with wing feathers on their legs had trouble just walking, because they could break or dirty their feathers if they dragged them on the ground. The adaptations they had for going airborne were immensely double-edged. They were great for getting them in the air, but made many other things much harder. EDIT: I just recalled, archaeopteryx didn't have the four wings like microraptor- it had long feathers on its calves, so it had sort of a half-wing that looked like trousers. Microraptor was the one with the four wings. So archaeopteryx would be able to walk normally. Still, the adaptations to achieve flight are great and double-edged.
@catpoke9557 Yes. So.much that is about modern Paleontology and Evolutionary theory seems to be an attempt to compromise to achieve some sort of unified consensus, rather than seeking to learn absolute truth. The whole Archaeopteryx isn't ancestral to modern birds but something very similar to it was type of statements feel like some prominent Paleontologists and Evolutionary Scientists refuse to go along with Archaeopteryx being a true "first Bird", and truly ancestral based mostly on some sort of bias, and using some minor traits that differ with modern Birds to stand firmly in their not a direct ancestor position. I get tired of hearing that it's not the fossil found but a common ancestor close to it. gave rise to said lineage. Occasionally, it's even attempted with the Homo Erectus into Homo Sapiens lineage, but it's so silly, they've finally really stopped doing it. Homo Ergaster belongs to that era, it's really just a Homo Erectus variant population. It works with Chimps and Humans, sort of. Actually the truth is when looking at the actual fossils of Ardipithecines, and Australopithecines, the "common ancestor" was VERY CHIMPLIKE, just not adapted to knuckle walk. They were more like modern Chimps in appearance, body design and brain development. This "common ancestor" could easily be described as a primitive Chimpanzee from 7 million years ago after the split with the ancestors of Gorillas, that had yet to develop the defensive canine fangs, or knuckle walking capability. This more generalized, primitive Chimp surviving descendants went into two directions of mixed results, ultimately surviving, but only 3 species are still extant. The common Chimpanzee, Bonobos, and Humans. The Human side suffered a great disaster, more than one major extinction events. There were multiple Genus' and a great many Species, and only one is left, barely, if the limited genetic variance is any indication. There was a point in the past 100,000 years when there were maybe 4 or more species of Hominin, Homo Erectus, Flores Man, Neanderthal Man, Denisovan Man, Pleistocene Homo Sapiens, before interbreeding with the others, except for maybe, Flores Man, and all were diminishing and clearly going extinct. Had the "Homo Sapiens", not rallied, and then mated with and preserved the genetics of all said groups except for Flores Man, an Alien Paleontologist would have been able to visit now and note the extinction of the highly derived fully bipedal relatives of the still extant Chimps, Bonobos, and Gorillas despite the clear diversity, and major series of species development of a 4 million year period. But I digress, anyway, I believe Archaeopteryx both was capable of powered flight, and was the direct ancestor of all later Birds, and Dromaeosaurs as well. I actually consider "Birds" to just be a surviving highly derived type of Dromaeosaur. Like if Deinonychus genus descendants had a major adaptive radiation for the rest of the Cretaceous, then, all but one lineage went extinct during the Mass Extinction event 66 or 65 Million years ago, then they have a major radiation into a vast number of genera and species during the following Cenozoic Period. That's what I think happened with Archaeopteryx, I think it's the basal Dromaeosaur, and all the later Dromaeosaurs and "Birds" are it's descendants. I think of fossils like "Archaeopteryx" as an example of an evolutionary stage in a lineage. Sometimes they ultimately go extinct, and sometimes they seem to lead to modern organisms somehow. There must have been "Archaeopteryx" type dinosaurs in more than just where they were preserved under very unique conditions. These, feathered, flying capable Coelurosaur Dinosaurs are in the perfect time to give rise to the Maniraptorans of the later Jurassic and into the rest of history up to the present. They are exactly what is needed also. Hence, I consider them basal Dromaeosaurs and "Birds" as actual Dromaeosaurs, not just close relatives.
The video screen picture is misleading. Dromeosaurs didn't evolve into birds. Dromeosaurids actually evolved after birds and mammals. Dromeosaurids are simply close relatives to birds
@@Dr.IanPlect read my previous comment, it's in English which you seem to somewhat understand. For sources you're welcome to use the search engine Google. Don't expect others to do your homework.
They say that birds did not out compete and replace pterosaurs.. So then what happened?? Why did birds evolve in the first place if pterosaurs were already occupying those niches?? Did pterosaurs not occupy as many niches as birds would?? What happened to the smaller pterosaurs? The way I see it, 1) birds either evolved in one part of the planet, where there were not pterosaurs(which doesn’t make much sense, because why would there be a place where there were no pterosaurs?) then proliferated like an invasive species and outcompeted small pterosaurs… 2) Small pterosaurs went extinct for some reason (but why?) and birds evolved to fill in their vacant niches.. Or 3) Birds evolved into and began occupying niches that pterosaurs never really occupied in the first place, then proliferated into actual pterosaur niches(Still doesn’t explain what happened to small pterosaurs).
Birds started popping off as pterosaura began getting gigantic, they started to slowly fill nieches left by the pterosaurs. For the ones living alongside pterosaurs around the same size they were probably niece partitioning
what may have happened is that, as Pterosaurs got bigger and bigger, the small pterosaurs fell out of favor, and at the same time there were a group of gliding dinosaurs that, since small pterosaurs were becoming less and less common in a part of the world, they filled the niche, and soon started filling the roles for most small pterosaurs(aka option 3)
@@jaysons6101 Yeah I tend to agree. I assume the small pterosaurs only loosely occupied the available, possible niches and were not as specialized as birds would become, leaving lots of gaps for them(the birds) to fill. At one point, without competition, it worked. But as birds got into the cracks (or niches which small pterosaurs never quite filled fully) they began to proliferate and outperform the small pterosaurs. Leaving only the really big pterosaurs, occupying megafaunal niches which birds never quite obtained, and have been vacant ever since the K-PG extinction(probably due to many other vacant niches, made so at the same event). Of course this is purely conjecture and broad assumption, not based on any research I know of.
Some of the questions I get is do you believe there's intelligent life outside of the Earth, the real question they should be asking is there any intelligent life left on this planet. If you really believe that a Tyrannosaurus turned into a chicken then you seriously need mental help.
Yep yep yes sirEEE, i sppose a brontosaurus turned into a bid fat turkey??? This seems to be such a far fetched clutch at straws! Why??? Still tryin to work that out i guess
Really? The Body design is similar. Also such a "Dinosaur" lies dormant in the Chicken genome. Jack Horner's team, over the past decade have developed the capability to create awaken the Maniraptoran Dinosaur genes in Chickens to create the mighty "Chickenosaurus" by perhaps as soon as 2025 they will have taken the humble, tasty Chicken, and restored it into a mighty Dromaeosaur, which is the lineage of Dinosaurs "Birds" belong to. The group of feathered Dinosaurs Velociraptor, Denonychus, and Dromaeosaurus belonged to also generated small flying types, one of whom survived to the present day, and we call them "Birds".
"these species my not live up to the nature of the infamous Tyrannosaurus rex"... well the geese remember the hard times, and they are out to prove you wrong. Anyway... great video, keep up the good work.
No, its common in late dinosaurian carnivores(although not all) that they evolved more robust heads for smaller arms. Although it IS possible(and likely) that Juvenile Tyrannosaurus had feathers, Adult probably had little to none(take elephants for example, almost no fur)
That thumbnail is... very unpleasant. The first dinosaurs were feathery, not scaly. Feathers are not a trait their ancestors gained with time. Rather their feathers became more complex with time. A more accurate thumbnail would represent an early theropod with simple fuzzy feathers, then a dromaeosaur-like dinosaur with pennaceous and contour feathers (but probably no toeclaw), and then starting from the toothed bird in the thumbnail everything is more or less accurate.
@@IamAWESOME3980 No, we do know, at least we know that the answer of them having feathers ancestrally is the most likely by far. To start with, pterosaurs had feathers. Unless this very complex structure evolved twice in the archosaurs, with two animals that just so happen to be very closely related, this means the ancestral ornithodiran- the common ancestor between dinosaurs and pterosaurs- had feathers. And therefore, unless it immediately lost feathers when it became a dinosaur but did not when it became a pterosaur, this would mean the first dinosaurs were scaly. Considering many dinosaurs have feathers, this... is not likely to be true. Moreover, feathers are present in both saurischian and ornithischian dinosaurs, and are present in many basal dinosaurs and absent in derived ones. Example: Tyrannosaurids. Basal tyrannosauroids are all feathered, but derived tyrannosaurids are likely all scaly. The dinosaur that pushes the idea of ancestrally scaly dinosaurs to the point of being a near absurd idea? Kulindadromeus. Undeniably ornithischian, and a basal one at that, with not only undeniable feathering, but lots of different feather types- many of which look exactly how we expect basal feathers to look. In order for dinosaurs to be ancestrally scaly, feathers would've had to convergently evolve MULTIPLE times within the ornithodirans, and NO other group has evolved anything even similar, except possibly longisquama. This is so unlikely that unless someone can find extraordinary evidence, it is considered almost certain that the earliest dinosaurs were all feathered. And that isn't even all the evidence we have- just some things I can remember off the top of my head. Indeed, feathers seem to be the trait that separates dinosaurs and pterosaurs from all other reptile groups. Even the scales of dinosaurs without feathers are... actually technically feathers, just highly derived ones. So they're a trait all dinosaurs share with each other.
We have never found a single missing link and we never will. We still have not one proof of one kind of animal making a full evolution into another kind.
Kind isn’t a category in taxonomy, and as for “missing links “, what ancestor/descendant of which two species do you think is unknown yet crucial to the theory?
@@AMC2283 The words we use to define a change from a bird into a mammal are not important. The issue is lack of any evidence of any current or past creature in the process of this change which requires a leap of faith to believe.
@@BrookDesHarnais Archaeopteryx not do it for you? Dino head with teeth, feathered wings with claws, long thin tail with feathers. You know; discovered a century and a half ago, in lithographic limestone in Germany.
@@williamchamberlain2263 Yes I was going to say the same thing. Plus I would have added that birds don’t have teeth anymore, because they don’t need them. So they evolved not to waste resources growing them.
@@azrielmoha6877 "A theory that's based on mountains of scientific observation and evidence." Nonsense. There is not a single evidence, just loose talk. A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science How many times has evolution been successfully tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results? Answer is ZERO. Evolution's existence indeed has been tested innumerable times, but every empirical test has proved that evolution does not happen.
Birds are NOT dinosaurs, they are descended from them. They are hot blooded and beaked. All modern birds started with a duck like-bird at the KT extinction event and developed into all modern birds.
wrong, birds are indeed dinosaurs, feathers, bones, ect everything about them are the exact same as the now extinct avian dinosaurs. and they were warm blooded as well. you have no idea what you are talking about.
How do you imagine your uneducated opinion is somehow superior to the findings and nearly unanimous scientific consensus of all of research and academia? What observations led you to make this claim?
Dinosaurs had dino genes, birds have bird's genes. Dinosaurs did not have bird genes, so they never transformed to birds. Simple! And please don't ply the mutation theory, mutations in DNA are like viruses in computer program.
"This is not just a theory, but a scientifically proven fact,".....well if you state it forcefully enough, then it must be true then, right? How about some evidence...if it is "scientifically proven" should be no problem. By what mechanism did the genome of dinosaurs take up new information, facilitating the transition into modern day birds?
@@AMC2283 No dude, it's not both. Genetic drift is only a shift in gene frequency, no new information can be added. There is no mechanism by which new information can be taken up by a genome. In other words, evolution is a mentally retarded fairy tale, and nothing more.
@@pierre-samuelroux9364 No not like MY creationism???!!!This just sounds like Bullshit. Oh how we mere humans clutch at straws to show how we know all. This is an obvious example of that ( my opinion only)
Ya, for one thing no animals have ever been observed changing into another kind. There arent any transitional fossil remains of this happening, there should be millions. The respiratory system of birds is completely different from dinosaurs or any other animals. How did that evolve? It just doesn't make common sense.
@@pauly165 kind isn’t a category in taxonomy. Organisms don’t change species, changes are hereditary. The fossil record is replete with bird ancestors. How does anything evolve, mutagens and natural selection cause genetic drift.
The avialan theropod dinosaurs finally lost their arms which would have eventually happened had the non avialan dinosaurs not become extinct at the end of the Cretaceous. They’re the only surviving dinosaurs. 😊
@@andrewgonzales6527 The endothermy in theropods evolved once and we can assume feathers emerged like that as well. I’m picturing T Rex as an overgrown, colourful chicken… with teeth instead of a beak! 🙂
Their were already flying birds back when the dinosaurs were here, they needed to really fly no matter where they were when the asteroid hit not glide from bush to bush.
Thw really intresting thing is that the beak tht birds have really never was a thing until the jurrasic extinction .there were many other extinctions yet none of them evolved the beak which is weird😊
@@SoulDelSol There are regions in China where u literally see no birds. They actively hunted birds during the culture revolution (one of Maos insane ideas). Today a lot of pollution and relentless destruction of nature. There a city's with parks where you don't see nor hear any bird. It's really strange if you recognize there is something missing.
I believe they are all birds, with and without wings, judging for the age of the fossils, birds and no avían dinosaurs have roughly the same age, seems like once they all share the planet at the same time
Hypothetically, if a environment changes to be more like the environment the dinosaurs lived in, could a creature or a bird, like the cassowary slowly evolve into a dinosaur-like creature? Similar to an archaeopteryx? Or something in that general form? And this hypothetical environment isnt a real environment, and this is just a question. Something kind of like this 7:53
Only those in the clade Theropoda(three toes)can be classified as modern dinosaurs. Calling all birds(even those with 2 or 4 feet) modern dinosaurs is a gross overstatement. Edit I thought I finished my edit, but it only said so I'll rewrite what I meant to say I didn't realize that two toed or four toed animals could be classified as theropods if they had three toed ancestors. My bad.
Great Video ! Except... just before the end , the Narrator states that birds "...are the direct descendants of the amazing reptiles that once ruled our planet" Reptiles? Dinosaurs WERE NOT Reptiles! Sheesh!
Actually is Sauruschian it was named back then when they didn't know which family(ornis or saurus- chain) birds belonged to, so they named the clades based on how the pelvis looked
